Tower Tech, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 4, 2002

No. 75709532re (T.T.A.B. Sep. 4, 2002)

Mailed: September 4, 2002

Paper No. 16
BAC

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Tower Tech, Inc.
________

Serial No. 75/709,532
_______

Request for Reconsideration
_______

Scott R. Zingerman of Fellers, Snider, Blankenship, Bailey
& Tippens, P.C. for Tower Tech, Inc.

Eugenia K. Martin, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
114 (K. Margaret Le, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Seeherman, Walters, and Chapman, Administrative
Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Chapman, Administrative Trademark Judge:
On May 14, 2002 the Board affirmed the Examining
Attorney’s refusal to register applicant’s mark,
SMARTTOWER, under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act.
Applicant filed on June 14, 2002 (via a certificate of
mailing) a request for reconsideration.
THIS DISPOSITION IS
NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE TTAB
Ser. No. 75/709532
2
Applicant argues that the Board’s analysis fails to
incorporate the complete definition of the word “smart” as
“of, relating to, or being a highly automated device,
especially one that imitates human intelligence...” in that
it is not enough that the device contains a microprocessor,
but that the microprocessor provides some functionality
causing the device to imitate human intelligence; that the
mere fact that a device is computer driven does not, by
itself, make that device “smart” or highly automated; that
many devices contain microprocessors in their function, but
that fact alone does not mean the device imitates human
intelligence; that there is no evidence of record to
support the assertion that cooling towers may or do contain
a microprocessor which allows the cooling towers to imitate
human intelligence; and that the patents which disclose
inventions that monitor the function of or evaluate the
performance of cooling towers do not rise to the level of
showing how the cooling towers imitate human intelligence.
Essentially, applicant relies on that portion of the
definition of “smart” in The American Heritage Dictionary
which refers to “especially one that imitates human
intelligence.” However, applicant fails to recognize that
this phrase is an example, and not a requirement for a
product to be considered “smart.” The definition in its
Ser. No. 75/709532
3
entirety is: “5. a. of, relating to, or being a highly
automated device, especially one that imitates human
intelligence: smart missiles.” Thus, applicant’s assertion
that in order for a device to be “smart” it must imitate
human intelligence is simply too restrictive an
interpretation in light of this definition, as well as the
other dictionary definition and the Nexis evidence which
were discussed in the Board’s May 14, 2002 decision.
Applicant’s request for reconsideration is denied.